dbg_continue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It describes the outcome (resume until stop/exit/timeout) but fails to mention important aspects like required debugger state (must be paused), error conditions (e.g., if session already running), or side effects. This incompleteness reduces transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to cover necessary details, which is a trade-off. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a debugger tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the prerequisite debugger state, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. No output schema exists, so the return behavior is entirely unspecified. The single parameter is undocumented, making the tool hard to use without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'session_id', and the tool's description does not explain what this parameter represents, its format, or any constraints. Since the agent cannot infer the meaning from the description, the score is very low.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Resume execution until the next stop, exit, or timeout.' It specifies the resource (execution) and the termination conditions, which helps distinguish it from stepping or pausing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like dbg_step, but the purpose is still clear enough for an agent in a debugging context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as dbg_step, dbg_pause, or dbg_start. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring the debugger to be in a paused state, nor does it explain when not to use it. This leaves the agent without context for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.